Maybe, but that isn't what the judge based his ruling on. Read the article, this is what he said: Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."
In other words he is saying the objectives of the federal government to disarm law abiding citizens overrides state powers(or rights if you prefer).
Besides being dead wrong about that, he is wrong about gun free zones having less violent crime than if people were freely armed.
Only a completely brain dead person would think that someone bent on killing others would hestitate to come to a place armed "because it is against the law". Therefore, this judge, and many others, only have one objective and that is to disarm the law abiding citizens so they can be more easily manipulated and forced into becoming good little communists.
The ironic result would be that it would then be a federal requirement to carry a gun. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
yeah, I agree. I was going to mention that, but decided on the suscinct reply.
My thoughts exactly. Judge Doofus relied on OSHA in making his ruling instead of a conflicting right, private property. I believe that he’ll be overturned on appeal.
To extend his “logic” to it’s logical ends, he must also ban automobiles in the parking lot as collisions kill far more people every year than firearms do by about a 4 to one ratio.